decision can be best described as a partial victory for both sides. david miranda's lawyers came here hoping to persuade the court that their client had been detained illegally. they said they used legislation to stop terrorists suspects, not to stop journalists. they said that equipment that had been seized from their client should be returned to their client, and they said the police should be barred from examining the material on that equipment, equipment that included a laptop and memory

reaction on the steps of the court. >> the undertakings of the police source were stopped in their tracks, and some of the basis on which the police sought to justify their position was rejected. our client will be returned his property. we consider this to be a partial victory, and we hope to have the court's full reasoning tomorrow afternoon. >> reporter: so the police now have seven days to continue examining the documents that are

afternoon. >> reporter: so the police now have seven days to continue examining the documents that are contained on the seized equipment. the lawyers in court said there were tens of thousands of documents, and they will have seven days to go through that. after that we'll have to come back to the court, persuade the judges they have good ground for suspicion or return the equipment to mr. miranda. judges will then also set a date for a hearing to decide whether or not david miranda was legally

included a laptop and memory sticks. they said that it was confident and the confidentiality of it should be preserved. but the argumen government argue was grounds of national security. they had starterred a criminal investigation. the judges said the police could hang onto the equipment. they could examine the material but only on grounds of national security. the other side gave they are reaction on the steps of the